Priggett v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals

Priggett v. City of Detroit

288 N.W.2d 441, 94 Mich. App. 402, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2542

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 1979

DocketDocket No. 78-4748

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 N.W.2d 441 (Priggett v. City of Detroit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Priggett v. City of Detroit, 288 N.W.2d 441, 94 Mich. App. 402, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2542 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, Delrita Priggett, appeals from an October 18, 1978, opinion and order of the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board. The WCAB affirmed the decision of a hearing referee granting compensation to plaintiff at the rate of $64 per week for 162 weeks for a specific loss injury, blindness in one eye, but rejected plaintiffs argu[404]*404ment that as an illegally employed minor she was entitled to double benefits under MCL 418.161(l)(b); MSA 17.237(161)(l)(b), which provides in pertinent part:

"Any minor under 18 years of age whose employment at the time of injury shall be shown to be illegal, in the absence of fraudulent use of permits or certificates of age in which case only single compensation shall be paid, shall receive compensation double that provided in this act.”

Contrary to the board’s opinion, we find that plaintiff was illegally employed due to noncompliance with the Hittle Juvenile Employment Act, MCL 409.24; MSA 17.724,¹ in effect at the date of employment and injury, which required that work permits be issued to minors. Harry Speelman, a representative of the work permit issuing authority, testified at trial that there was no record of a permit having ever been issued to plaintiff. He testified that such a permit would not be valid unless signed by an authorized representative of his office. Plaintiffs employer did have a form designated "work permit” in plaintiffs name, but without the signature of an authorized issuing officer the permit was invalid, thereby rendering plaintiffs employment illegal. Apparently, plaintiffs employer was aware that the permit was defective since its personnel clerk failed to return the work permit to the issuing authority upon [405]*405termination of plaintiffs employment as required by MCL 409.104; MSA 17.731(4) (formerly MCL 409.11; MSA 17.711) which provides in pertinent part:

"(2) Immediately after the termination of the minor’s employment, the employer shall return the permit to the issuing officer.”

Plaintiff, having shown she was illegally employed at the time of injury, is entitled to double compensation. The holding of the WCAB is hereby reversed in part and defendant is ordered to pay double compensation under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, Delrita Priggett, appeals from an October 18, 1978, opinion and order of the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board. The WCAB affirmed the decision of a hearing referee granting compensation to plaintiff at the rate of $64 per week for 162 weeks for a specific loss injury, blindness in one eye, but rejected plaintiffs argu[404]*404ment that as an illegally employed minor she was entitled to double benefits under MCL 418.161(l)(b); MSA 17.237(161)(l)(b), which provides in pertinent part:

"Any minor under 18 years of age whose employment at the time of injury shall be shown to be illegal, in the absence of fraudulent use of permits or certificates of age in which case only single compensation shall be paid, shall receive compensation double that provided in this act.”

Contrary to the board’s opinion, we find that plaintiff was illegally employed due to noncompliance with the Hittle Juvenile Employment Act, MCL 409.24; MSA 17.724,¹ in effect at the date of employment and injury, which required that work permits be issued to minors. Harry Speelman, a representative of the work permit issuing authority, testified at trial that there was no record of a permit having ever been issued to plaintiff. He testified that such a permit would not be valid unless signed by an authorized representative of his office. Plaintiffs employer did have a form designated "work permit” in plaintiffs name, but without the signature of an authorized issuing officer the permit was invalid, thereby rendering plaintiffs employment illegal. Apparently, plaintiffs employer was aware that the permit was defective since its personnel clerk failed to return the work permit to the issuing authority upon [405]*405termination of plaintiffs employment as required by MCL 409.104; MSA 17.731(4) (formerly MCL 409.11; MSA 17.711) which provides in pertinent part:

"(2) Immediately after the termination of the minor’s employment, the employer shall return the permit to the issuing officer.”

Plaintiff, having shown she was illegally employed at the time of injury, is entitled to double compensation. The holding of the WCAB is hereby reversed in part and defendant is ordered to pay double compensation under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 N.W.2d 441, 94 Mich. App. 402, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priggett-v-city-of-detroit-michctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack